User talk:MvGulik
'' talk/discussion page. Use + to start a new talk section/topic. Last cleared: 06:13, 25 December 2013 (EST)'' =Fishing= I have found this snippet of conversation with loftar, that hints at the futility of our fish research:http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34730&start=940#p520802 :(18:41:17) Is fishing implemented through that meta language? :(18:41:27) Not the fishing mechanic itself. :(18:41:33) not aware of CL :(18:41:37) But most of the items involved in fishing, like the lures and stuff, are. :(18:41:45) Common Lisp, surely you've heard of it? :(18:41:45) what made you switch from python? :(18:41:49) ah :(18:41:50) Yea, that is what I was asking :(18:41:51) sorry :(18:41:52) Mostly speed. :(18:41:56) yeah i know lisp :(18:41:59) The use this rod and this lure at this water spot at this time :(18:41:59) But also macros. :(18:42:01) for this fish :(18:42:12) i just didnt know people abbreviated to CL =p :(18:42:14) That is all generated through it, right? :(18:42:41) Well, that mostly just uses a couple of random seeds and garbles them together into something that can't be predicted at all. ^^ :(18:42:53) That explains so much Ashghan (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2015 (EDT) :Mmm, yea. It would explain much. Still, although it might not be possible to predicts what fish-types your going to catch on a given Time+Location+Gear, there still seem to be some general behaviors in play when it comes to how things change. As in: :- Your not catching randomly all possible fish-types types when you fishing (same time, same spot, same gear.). But that's assuming the same chance for all fish types, which is clearly not the case. :- The chances on what fish-types might be caught (same spot, same gear, different time) seems to change slowly. As in: the chance for catching a particular fish type seems to first go up, peak, and than drops off again. (This part might be using a fixed time.) :My personal imaginary view on the fishing system looks a bit like: :- Every fish type has a default chance to be caught. :- With time this default is changed for some of the fish-types to peak. (this would be random driven) :- And gear might skew it all a bit, or based on fishing-gear(lure in particular) you might even have a different initial gear/chance setup. (Water being a given for having its own gear-system) :- Other stuff I might have overlooked. :I personally don't think these parts are easy to flush out, and they kinda call for scripted fishing (with different characters too I think). :Will try to take a other look at all the fishing data so see if I might be able to see some, hopefully, useful stuff in there. :--.MvGulik. 14:18, 3 July 2015 (EDT) ::I think bait/lure type basically defines what fish you can catch. I have yet to see a sturgeon and salmon, and I have caught eel only once. My theory would be that each bait has a given 'pool' of fish types to choose from, and some have a very low (or none) chance of appearing. That would explain why, using the most common baits I caught mainly 3 types of fish - Perch, Pike and Brill. Roach, Plaice and Bream happen rarely, Eel once, and Salmon and Sturgeon did not happen yet. And another thing - there is almost no data from W7 to confirm catching both Salm ant Stur. :: So I'd flip your theory - it's the bait that determines the fish that can be caught, while time influences the exact distribution of types.Ashghan (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2015 (EDT) ::: Type-Pool: From a programming point of view there is no real need to have different type-pools. Just by setting some of the fish-types to a really low chance (or even zero pool idea) for a given bait/lure/water(shallow/deep/cave)/etc you virtually get the same effect. With the added bonus that its still possible on rare occasion to catch a unexpected fish. (This one, for example, is hard to test because it relies on catching those rare occasions. Or a really big data-set to suggest otherwise. Actually, because of the presumed random nature of the fishing-system, anything is hard to test as it relies on statistically flushing out the behaviors. And for that you need a lot and precise data. And than there is of course the problem of dissecting that data. Lol, no wonder this fishing system was never solved. ;-) '') ::: '''Time': Perhaps. I'm not having any solid idea's on that yet. ::: --.MvGulik. 16:46, 3 July 2015 (EDT)